Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008–09 Eastbourne Borough F.C. season

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 Eastbourne Borough F.C. season

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a season by a club not playing in a fully-professional league, which fails WP:NSEASONS. We have had numerous AfDs on these and the majority have resulted in deletion, e.g. this or this. Prod removed by a fan of the club in question. Also nominating 2009–10 Eastbourne Borough F.C. season for deletion for the same reason. Number 5 7 15:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See above: fails WP:NSEASONS; WP:CON is to delete. Amccann421 (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without wanting to violate WP:OtherStuffExists, the season article 2008–09 York City F.C. season from a club in the same league the same season is now a Good Article. Is it not possible that the Eastborune article could also be one with further work? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can understand the rationale behind this move, based on precedent, however not the approach taken - given that no other articles (at time of checking) have been flagged up for deletion - which leads me to question the lack of consistent application? Echoing User:Delusion23's comment, I would note that this article is considerably better cited than numerous season articles of clubs competing at the same level. The guidelines of WP:NSEASONS also seem unclear on what classifies as not notable, only really addressing what is certainly notable - leaving this a bit of a grey area. BoroFan89 (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted above, fails NSEASONS. I would actually argue that the York season noted above, whilst structurally a good article, is actually not notable and consists almost entirely of routine match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG, as all coverage is run-of-the-mill for any club. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both - not notable enough. Fails GNG. C 679 17:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.